Dhruv Your proposed text is even better like it is.
No hard feeling for the TLV name, I will defer to Erik Kline (the ONLINK name was suggested when there were 2 addresses and made sense for 2 addresses) -éric -----Original Message----- From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 26 February 2021 at 08:25 To: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]> Cc: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[email protected]>, Erik Kline <[email protected]>, Julien Meuric <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, pce-chairs <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Eric, On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 12:45 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Shuping, > > The text is much better but may I still suggest the following: > > --- Proposed text by the authors -- > Further, this document specify a new TLV called ONLINK-IPV6-ADDRESS > to describe an IPv6 unnumbered adjacency for a link that does not > have an IPv6 address assigned. > > ---- Proposed text by Éric Vyncke ---- > Further, this document specify a new TLV called LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS > to describe an IPv6 unnumbered adjacency for an interface that does not > have a global IPv6 address assigned. > ----- > As a side note, I find " IPv6 unnumbered adjacency" a very strange wording as an IPv6 always has a 'number' in the sense that link-local address is always there. > Maybe we could say - Further, this document specifies a new TLV called LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ADDRESS to describe an IPv6 adjacency for an interface that does not have a global IPv6 address assigned. Erik suggested using ONLINK instead of LINKLOCAL for the TLV name. I am not sure, to me using LINKLOCAL to match with RFC 8664 seems to be okay. Any thoughts on that? Thanks! Dhruv > Once the revised I-D is posted, then I am clearing my DISCUSS point (please send me an email when the revised I-D is posted) > > -éric > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 26 February 2021 at 04:43 > To: Erik Kline <[email protected]>, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, Julien Meuric <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, pce-chairs <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Hi Erik, > > Thank you for your comments! Please find the diff including the updates based on your comments. Thank you! > > Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13.txt > > Best regards, > Shuping > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Kline [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:57 PM > To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Cc: Éric Vyncke <[email protected]>; Julien Meuric <[email protected]>; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; pce-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > Dhruv, > > Thanks for this. > > >From my previous review, for reference only: > > """ > * Saying that the LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV holds a pair of global IPv6 > addresses seems confusing to me. > > If the pair of global IPv6 addresses is to be considered "on link" in the > sense that IPv6 ND can be successfully be performed on the link for both > of these addresses, then "ONLINK" might be better than LINKLOCAL. > > * Also, why are two interface IDs required? I would have expected that only > the outgoing interface name/ID would be of relevance to the recipient of > a message with TLV in it? > """ > > Just for your consideration, in case "ONLINK" seems like it might be useful naming. > > One more thing of note: I am terrible at naming! > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:46 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > I discussed this offline with one of the authors, who confirmed that > > while NAI in RFC 8664 uses a pair, in this case, the pair is not > > needed for the next-hop information and it can be updated as suggested > > by you. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:50 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > > > > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: Discuss > > > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > > > > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > > > > cut this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > > > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for > > > > -pce-controller/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---- > > > > DISCUSS: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I have not had time > > > > to review in details though :( but I appreciated the detailed > > > > description as well as the useful time diagrams. > > > > > > > > Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (which may be my bad > > > > understanding), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies > > > > would be appreciated). > > > > > > > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > -éric > > > > > > > > == DISCUSS == > > > > > > > > -- Section 7.3.1 -- > > > > LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRESS TLV: I fail to understand why there are > > > > two addresses in this TLV while others have one one ? Also is > > > > 'local' and 'remote' really global addresses ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erik Kline had the same comment. > > > > > > The text and encoding is inspired by RFC 8664 > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#section-4.3.2 > > > > > > which says - > > > > > > IPv6 Link-Local Adjacency: > > > Specified as a pair of (global IPv6 address, interface ID) tuples. > > > It is used to describe an IPv6 adjacency for a link that uses only > > > link-local IPv6 addresses. Each global IPv6 address is configured on > > > a specific router, so together they identify a pair of adjacent routers. > > > The interface IDs identify the link that the adjacency is formed over. > > > > > > A reference to RFC8664 and more description can be added. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Dhruv > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---- > > > > COMMENT: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > == COMMENTS == > > > > > > > > A minor comment: the abstract is clear but probably a little too > > > > long for an abstract. > > > > > > > > -- Section 7.3 -- > > > > Just wonder why LINKLOCAL-IPV6-ID-ADDRES is not mentioned in this > > > > section but well in the next one ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
